I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I did LD for four years in high school, currently I'm a freshman in college.

Overall: I like line-by-line arguments, and I like it when debaters go deep into arguments to closely examine them. I like quality over quantity. I like it when debaters take time to unpack what their (and their opponent(s)) evidence is saying, rather than spamming cards. I like it when debaters pay attention to the details of what their opponents are saying.

If your evidence or logic says something different from your opponents', I would like to hear why one is better than the other.

Framework: If you say something is good or bad about a framework, say why that matters. For example, if you say that your opponent's framework can't be clearly measured while yours can, explain why a framework needs to be measurable.

Speed: Talk fast at your own risk. I'm generally not that good at understanding debaters who talk fast.

If you go overtime during your speech, I will not take off speaks or interrupt, but I won't flow arguments made after the timer goes off.

Random preferences: I am very unlikely to vote for theory or Ks or tricks or other circuit arguments, so if you want to run those, you should probably strike me.

I'm generally fine with plans and counterplans, but I don't really like extremely specific PICs. Anti-PIC theory is one of the only theory arguments I would vote for.

I don't know what T debates are. People have tried to explain disads to me, but so far I don't get what's different about them from the neg saying "contention 1"

I'm unlikely to vote for extinction link chains unless they are really compelling or the topic is about nuclear weapons.

If you do math in the round, I will give you very high speaks.

One final thing:

Debate should be chill and friendly, educational, and most importantly fun. I know there can be a lot of pressure; I certainly felt that pressure when I was debating in high school. I hope you can enjoy yourself and learn from the experience no matter whether you win or lose.

Click this link to add Strategy as a friend in Brawl Stars! https://link.brawlstars.com/invite/friend/en?tag=8G8UJP2VG&token=r27r8jxy

Bellarmine '24. Stanford '28.

Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion. Be scrappy. Go for the path of least resistance. Don't shy away from clash. Given that, I’ll list several of my ideological dispositions below to be as transparent as possible — each of which can be reversed by out-debating the other team. My one unshakeable belief is that I will not vote on ad homs, strategies that rely on events that occured outside the round, and evidence ethics challenges.*

I don’t want a card doc. I’ve found it increasingly problematic that teams treat these docs as a third rebuttal. I will never reorganize a debate by reading evidence myself. Evidence is for you to explain and impact out.

K Affs: I’m very good for T-USFG against affirmatives that do not defend a hypothetical enactment of the resolution. Fairness is the best impact. I’m also very persuaded by defensive negative arguments that subsume a majority of affirmative offense, including switch-side debate and topical versions of the aff.

T: Interpretations couched in the language of predictable limits are best. Spend more time on internal link comparison than on high-level impact comparison at the top of your final rebuttals. I would prefer to not evaluate contrived interpretations that have questionable caselists. Especially for the negative, T debating is about painting a story of what worlds of debate would look like under each model using concrete examples. I’m not persuaded by a 2NC that rants about possible fringe affirmatives; explain why being able to read these affirmatives would make it impossible to debate.

CP: Infinite conditionality is good. Default is judge kicking the CP. Neg-leaning on most theoretical objections, but aff-leaning on international, private actor, and multi-actor fiat. Most affirmative objections are better communicated in the language of competition. I think affirmative competition interpretations are best grounded in defenses of specification as 'functions' of the plan. Generally not a fan of generic process CPs. Perms should be paired with a solvency deficit to flip offense-defense framing affirmative (obviously barring PDCP). Problems with CP planks not having advocates are better expressed through deficits rather than theory.

DA: I wish every 2NR in debate was disad/case. I find most overly simplistic, hyperbolic impact calc unhelpful in evaluating debates. The link is usually more important than uniqueness to me. Spin matters far more to me than evidence. I’m a sucker for rebuttals that go through each portion of the DA and explain numbered framing issues for how I should evaluate that specific portion.

Case: I am happy to vote negative on presumption provided burdens are explained and won.

K: I’m very good for 'extinction outweighs' against Ks that fail to moot the affirmative. I'm best for FW models that entirely exclude the case or the K. Neg teams should probably go for FW in front of me. I will always start evaluating these debates with FW. I will decide in favor of one side’s interpretation, not arbitrarily manufacture a middle ground.

Lay: I will never penalize (and will, in fact, be enthused by) a team who adapts to the slowest judge on their panel. Accordingly, I will excitedly adjudicate a debate that deals with stock issues and deep logistical case presses.

*There are only two scenarios where I will consider these arguments. First, if Team A has read a miscut card in an earlier debate, Team B has made substantial good-faith efforts to reach out to them about it (which includes multiple emails), and Team A continues to read the same miscut card, I’m very willing to vote for Team B. Second, if a team has disclosed an affirmative as “new” despite reading cards from earlier rounds, that is the textbook definition of cheating. You deserve to lose.

Hi!

I am a lay parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace. My son has done PF for 2 years, so I am reasonably familiar with the round structure.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

(He/Him)

I currently am the Co-Director of Speech and Debate for our team located on Outschool. I've been exclusively judging and coaching LD and PF this season, so I understand most of the terminology that you could throw at me.

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, throwing it in the chat, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is ethanwvcag@gmail.com

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument, but will vote on drop-the-debater if that argument is warranted out to me (though my threshold for voting on drop-the-debater is pretty high). I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Aff's, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Aff's running Disclosure Theory against Neg's is a viable strategy in front of me.

CP: I don't have a strong personal opinion on conditionality, but I lean towards disliking conditional CP's- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is a little risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world. Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to drop the AFF, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only attack one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and presumption are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments.

LD (Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd rebuttal must answer all offense that was made in 1st rebuttal. If you want to drop an arg that only had defense read on it, that's more than fine by me. 1st and 2nd summary must extend all offense and defense they plan to go for in final focus. Summary and final focus should look really similar.

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF. Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me. I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can.

2 Tell me why I should be voting for you

3. Disclose your case prior to your speech

4. +1 speak if you can fit the word wowza in cross

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!

Overview

• Call me “judge” in-round, thanks

• Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.

• Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.

• Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

• Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.

• There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.

• An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.

• Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

• Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.

• I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.

• Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!